Governments always seem to love scientists when the scientists are telling them what they want to hear. Today, a grey-suited politician, Owen Paterson, who glories in the title of Secretary of State for the Environment, has come out of his bunker to laud the benefits of genetically modified crops.
Mr Paterson is claiming not only that GM crops are safe, but that they are probably safer than conventionally grown crops. It is his view, as stated on the BBC, that GM crops bring significant benefits to farmers, consumers and the environment and that the next generation of GM crops offer the "most wonderful opportunities to improve human health". Presumably the minister has derived this astonishingly positive view of genetic modification from scientists within his department, and elsewhere, who are keen for this technology to be introduced as quickly as possible, but no actual sources are quoted. What the evidence is for his remarkable claims is, therefore, unknown.
Groups opposed to the introduction of GM crops in this country are, of course, unhappy and claim that genetic modification is dangerous and misguided. The source of their information is equally vague and the opposing camps remain poles apart.
The truth is unknown but history teaches us that science has often been subverted by special interest groups for their own ends. Consequently, it seems likely that those in favour of genetic modification stand to make much money from its introduction while those opposed may have their own political agenda, unsupported by any real evidence. Only yesterday, the BBC carried a story about the extent to which major companies and scientific laboratories conceal the results of research which does not support their specific aims and objectives. Is it likely that research into the use of genetic modification has been reported any more honestly ? The obvious conclusion is that it has not been and that the full truth about genetic modification has yet to be revealed. However, the logic relating to and deriving from its use gives rise to enormous concerns.
While the basic technology may be well tested and quite safe, the consequences may ultimately be disastrous. Genetic modification of crops is designed to render crops resistant to pests and diseases and to give greater yields; these are all laudable aims, but one has to wonder just what impact there may be on the rest of the environment as a result. Insects do not exist in isolation and neither do diseases; if, for example, a crop is rendered resistant to aphids, the insects which usually prey on the aphids will be affected as will the food-chain above those insects. Some will say that this happens anyway as a consequence of the use of insecticides and that GM is a better option than spraying crops with nasty chemicals, but at least some aphids will be resistant to the chemicals and will still provide some food for their predators; GM will be designed to completely eradicate the aphids, thus completely eliminating an entire food chain and all of the creatures which rely on it. What the consequences of this would be can only be guessed at, but could easily be quite catastrophic. Even just increasing the yields of crops may have dangers, as peripheral plants, generally considered to be weeds, are squeezed out, thus also eliminating the food-chains which have historically relied on them.
Of course, some insects may gain immunity to the genetic modification and so may some diseases as they mutate, MRSA-like. We would then be in the same mess that we are today with the use of antibiotics - a never-ending battle as the geneticists, rather than the immunologists, strive to discover evermore esoteric ways of staying one step ahead of the objects of their interventions.
Remarkably, none of this seems to be commented on by those of either side who appear in the media and Mr Paterson appears to be utterly oblivious to it. As a politician he, of course, knows that he will be long gone by the time the true consequences of any decisions he takes become clear and he may well have benefited from directorships and other patronage from the companies and interests that he's now supporting. Goody for him.
I don't know exactly how safe GM is or will be in the future, but I do know that its true potential effects have yet to be explained to the public at large. Until that happens, I will remain implacably opposed to its wide scale introduction and everyone else should remain so to.
No comments:
Post a Comment